SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(UK) 55

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
BILLOO – Appellant
Versus
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MUSSOORIE DISTRICT DEHRADUN THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Respondent


Table of Content
1. challenge to eviction process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiff's history of rental agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. legal claims based on non-compliance. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
4. court's scrutiny of appellate process. (Para 9 , 13 , 14)
5. importance of due process in eviction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court allows appeal with conditions. (Para 18 , 19)
7. no order as to costs. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This is a plaintiff’s Second Appeal, wherein, the plaintiff/ appellant, herein, has challenged the impugned judgements dated 6th December, 2013, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2011, Billoo Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad , Mussoorie and another, which stood dismissed by the judgement of the learned District Judge, and as a consequence thereto, it has resulted into an affirmation of the judgement and decree dated 28th March, 2011, as rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 519 of 2002, Billoo Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and another , by virtue of which, the Suit of the appellant for grant of decree of permanent injunction, preferred by the plaintiff/ appellant was dismissed. As a consequence thereto, in fact, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top